Backswings

[tennis_chiro]

Line #1

D_B,
the elegance and simplicity of your three parallel lines is beautiful, but is it really ideal. Why have you strayed so far from the stance Hogan advocates in both "5 Lessons" and "Power Golf". In "Power Golf", he explains that a closed to open stance, which he advocates as you move down from driver to wedge, varies from a purely square stance by only a 1/2 inch either side of that neutral square stance line. What you are advocating with your front foot 6" forward is literally 6 times that spread. On top of that, wouldn't we be better off comparing a tennis swing to a 5-iron where he advocates a purely square stance.

Now, I'm not advocating using Hogan as a source for teaching tennis, but if you are going to bring up that source, I would like to hear your justification for the discrepancy there.

I think the "ideal" stance should be more along the lines of a completely square to slightly open stance which facilitates rotatation of the hips into the shot. A closed stance will inhibit that. We can find plenty of video to justify anything from open to closed. We need to find some greater rational.

don

[stotty]

I know nothing of golf other than a bloke stands sideways to belt the ball 300 yards up a fairway. In tennis, hitting off a sideways stance (closed stance) is not a good idea because the hips act as a block as the player rotates and follows thru. Relating tennis to golf ain't a great idea for those that know little about golf

However, I am intrigued about D_B's "three lines" because the Spanish teach this as a basic. I am just wondering, when rallying gets more hectic, how insistant a coach should be about maintaining the "three lines" ...and at what point it becomes more acceptable, from a coaches standpoint, to allow students to adopt more open stances.... should a player work overtime to get into the "three lines" position?...or should coaches be more relaxed about stances and allow players to play off any stance so long as they are on balance?

[don_budge]

Teaching in a vacuum...or the need for guidelines and models

3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet

I assume this is just to "get in position"? As the torso would turn a little more as the racket is fully drawn back to the end of the backswing?

I have been working on these "three lines" with a student of mine. Works well when I feed balls in...gets far more difficult once more hectic rallying is applied.

Verbally to the student as I am feeding balls...it is simply put, something like this:

1. Push the racquet with your free hand and create the wrist position and forehand grip (with the initial turn towards the ball) strings pointing at the ball
2. Continue to turn and push the racquet back
3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet
4. Initiate the swing with a "pull" of the hips and shoulders, then the racquet handle to the ball
5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball

This is an approximation of what I am telling my student. Usually my students don't come to me with preconceived notions on how to swing a tennis racquet. I give students guidelines to start off with. I teach fundamentals.

When I talk about the three lines with young Swedish children, which is what I generally start off with, I have to keep my language pretty simple and general...which is probably a blessing. Along with these instructions they get plenty of demonstrations which also provides them with a visual aid in realizing the limitation of words and language. Of course it's not as simple as "5 easy instructions" and if I was coaching in a vacuum...I just might think that it was as simple as that.

Individuals are going to place their feet differently and they are going to twist their torso's to various degrees...they are going to set their racquets differently no matter what you tell them as you have pointed out. There is no holy grail when it comes to teaching tennis. Period.

Here is the model that I am working from...can you see the approximation of the three lines just before he starts to turn his hips back to the ball. Use your mouse to slow down the whirling dervish.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_forehand/rf_fh_center/rf_fh_center.html?RFFHCenterNeutralStanceFront.mov

This is a ball that Roger is set to "tee off" on and this is the footwork he has chosen. He could of played this ball from an open stance, but he didn't. I think it was because he wanted to set up to this ball to drive it and finish the point. Judging by the applause and the way he turns his back resolutely on his opponent...mission accomplished.

[don_budge]

G. O. L. F.-Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden...or 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

I know nothing of golf other than a bloke stands sideways to belt the ball 300 yards up a fairway. In tennis, hitting off a sideways stance (closed stance) is not a good idea because the hips act as a block as the player rotates and follows thru. Relating tennis to golf ain't a great idea for those that know little about golf

However, I am intrigued about D_B's "three lines" because the Spanish teach this as a basic. I am just wondering, when rallying gets more hectic, how insistant a coach should be about maintaining the "three lines" ...and at what point it becomes more acceptable, from a coaches standpoint, to allow students to adopt more open stances.... should a player work overtime to get into the "three lines" position?...or should coaches be more relaxed about stances and allow players to play off any stance so long as they are on balance?

Well now at least you know what the word "golf" means. Perhaps it would be a good idea to give all tennis coaches a crash course in golf as well.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_forehand/rf_fh_center/rf_fh_center.html?RFFHCenterNeutralStanceFront.mov

Once again, here is my model. You must admit that I am consistent if nothing else. Roger is setting up to "tee off" on this ball. He is fully intent on knocking it into next week. He doesn't intend for his opponent to get another play on this ball. Judging from the response of the audience...he succeeds in his intentions.

As you can see, Federer has set up in the stance that I describe to a T. Crouched, feet planted firmly in the ground with the front foot "slightly ahead" of the back and if you use your mouse to take the video frame by frame I think you will be able to discern that he has approximately created the three lines or vectors that I describe for my beginning students. Even from his closed stance he has no problem rotating and following through...clearly his hips have not created any type of blocking mechanism. I have heard that argument before regarding the closed stance...but I don't buy it.

A closed stance, on the other hand, might eliminate wild finishes in forehand swings which would of been the subject of my next post to the little Dynamo before the thread was deleted.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/music_videos/federer_fh_not_gone/index.html

This is a post that was also concerning westcoast777's footwork...

In the music video "Forehand Not Gone", Roger Federer is hitting four forehands from less than perfect position. Notice though that he dutifully attempts to create perfect position at the moment of impact.

fh 1...backing up, left foot plants first and as he swings into the ball the right foot is backing up in line with the front

fh 2...moving to his right, right foot plants first and left comes swinging into line as he swings into the ball

fh 3...backing up, left foot plants first and right foot slides backwards into position as he swings into the ball

fh 4...backing up, left foot plants first and the right foot slides backwards into position as he swings into the ball

In the video Roger is swinging at four forehands and in three of them he is running around his backhand to his left. Since his momentum is carrying him to his left he plants his left foot first to assure himself that he has ample room to make his swing yet at the same time his right foot is backing up to bring himself into alignment with the ball. You see also that he must make a last moment adjustment by taking to the air to create just a bit more room to make his swing. Yet his head and body are perfectly still at the moment of impact.

In the single ball that he is moving to his right, at the last moment he plants his right foot a bit forward towards the net from his left foot as he tries to take the ball a bit earlier and at the same time his left foot is moving towards the ball so that at the moment of impact he is in as close to proper alignment with the ball as humanly possible.

The music video is simply a perfect example of how the forehand should be played when perfect position on the ball is not possible. Normally when I am watching Federer in a match, I like to watch just him without taking my eyes off him to watch the ball or his opponent. Coincidentally, I heard Rod Laver suggest the same thing. For instance, in the music video one can really appreciate the grace and perfect balance that Federer has when he is in the moment of truth...and that is when he has his body aligned to make his move on the ball from “get in position”. Even when he is actually in the air, off the ground, he is somehow able to achieve nearly perfect stability as he is swinging and this is evidenced with the still positioning of his head. He has the ability to achieve the Hoganesque lower body movement to the ball to initialize his swing...even with less than perfect position.

End of post.

Yes...it gets hectic. But it's no reason to cast all reason and technique to the wind. Simply adjust accordingly...and commensurably with the time constraints like Federer does. When there isn't enough time to get the front foot in position, make damn sure that you don't fail to turn your hips and shoulders as well. Like the Meatloaf song..."Two Out of Three Ain't Bad". If you don't have time to get the hips and shoulders turned, make doubly damn sure you get the racquet back so that at least you can try and sweep the racquet head through the ball...somehow.

The funny thing is, though, in tennis...there are different schools of thought. I subscribe to the School of Classic Tennis but I realize that it is not for everybody.

[don_budge]

My model is Driving this ball...to the Promised Land!

D_B,
the elegance and simplicity of your three parallel lines is beautiful, but is it really ideal. Why have you strayed so far from the stance Hogan advocates in both "5 Lessons" and "Power Golf". In "Power Golf", he explains that a closed to open stance, which he advocates as you move down from driver to wedge, varies from a purely square stance by only a 1/2 inch either side of that neutral square stance line. What you are advocating with your front foot 6" forward is literally 6 times that spread. On top of that, wouldn't we be better off comparing a tennis swing to a 5-iron where he advocates a purely square stance.

Now, I'm not advocating using Hogan as a source for teaching tennis, but if you are going to bring up that source, I would like to hear your justification for the discrepancy there.

I think the "ideal" stance should be more along the lines of a completely square to slightly open stance which facilitates rotatation of the hips into the shot. A closed stance will inhibit that. We can find plenty of video to justify anything from open to closed. We need to find some greater rational.

don

My teaching model:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_forehand/rf_fh_center/rf_fh_center.html?RFFHCenterNeutralStanceFront.mov

My comments and references to Mr. Hogan were with regard to the lower body movement to initiate the forward motion of the swing. Technically, I wasn't referencing him on stances. Here you have opened up another can of words...and I cherish the opportunity to address the little squigglies.

Take a look at my model forehand and you tell me if Federer's front foot is approximately 6 inches give or take some wiggle room...in front of his back foot. It certainly appears to be so to me. But your point is well taken, tennis_chiro. Stances do vary from shot to shot. Just as golfers hit shots on balls that are standing still that range from 300 meter drives with slightly closed stances to 1 meter putts with slightly open stances...tennis players shots are hit on moving, spinning balls and cover a broad spectrum also...therefore require subtle and not so subtle adjustments in stance and angles in the tilt of their racquet heads. While golfers are permitted to carry only 13 or 14 clubs in their bags they can probably hit three or four shots with every club...which leaves them with a lot of options and therefore a lot of different stances, tennis players carry at least as many clubs and options in their bags...at least I know that I do, and they too are required to hit from many different stances and with a variety of follow throughs.

Your preference for a slightly open to neutral stance is well founded. You will no doubt find many to back you up...personally I don't disagree with you. I can see the rational for such a teaching model. The one thing in Roger's teed up forehand that I would critisize is the angle of his planted front foot. Well...nobodies perfect. Well...except you know who. I would advise more of a 33 degree turn of his front foot rather than the 3.3555 degree he has chosen...so that his hips could rotate a bit more freely and his knee doesn't bear the brunt of the forward momentum. I think Hogan recommends 22.5 degrees, but I don't want to quibble with him. Hogan says, "Remember to turn the toes slightly out. This will aid you to keep your balance during the full swing and at the same time ensure full freedom for the body turn". (page 24 of Power Golf)

But as it looks...Federer didn't have any problem rotating through his shot or keeping his balance. And his knee was apparently ok after the shot. After the millions of shots as a matter of fact. But then again...he is Roger Federer. He knows how to compensate for all and any variables.

But if I need further rational to justify my using Roger Federer teeing off on a forehand as my model...please consult with my analyst...Dr. don_budge, Tennis and Golf Therapist.

[don_budge]

How did it go...Glenn?

To World's Best Coach( WBC for future reference) thanks for the tip about thinking of the forehand as a powerful half volley --I'm playing both days this weekend ( if no rain) and I'm eager to experiment with the concept.

Cheers,

Glenn

gsheiner...how did it go this weekend? Did you play well? Any further thoughts on the "power half volley" experiment?

[stotty]

Three lines

Very interesting the three lines concept. I went on a Spanish course held recently here in the UK. Spanish players are encouraged to work overtime with their feet to get into the three lines set-up. When players are backing up behind the baseline it's a given they will be able to achieve it; players simply turn and move diagonally backwards crab-like into position.

Much emphasis is placed on footwork in Spain...moving well....keeping balanced. Players have more freedom to self-develop than they do here in the UK. As a result great chunks of their game seem to be missing; they volley poorly, serves are merely popped in...yet their strengths are great...endurance...relentless rallying...patience...great forehands.

[worldsbestcoach]

disagree....but I am happy to disagree with majority

Stotty, I respect your comments. I understand where you are coming from. But even commentators on the tennis tv matches often say that the topspin forehands break down for many of the players before the backhands do. Why? Because pro players' topspin backhands are often more sound than their topspin forehands are. (But of course their backhands are far from perfect, also.)

Sorry I do not blindly idolize and worship the pro players in this or any other era. I am sure that Federer would listen to and consider my ideas, however.

For example, Federer was asked why he does not serve and volley more at Wimbledon. His answer? He said perhaps when he learns to volley better, he will serve and volley more. He is right. He has flaws in both forehand and backhand volleys. At least he knows he needs to get better -- although by forcing himself to come to the net more frequently, recently, Fed is improving on his volleys.

There is great similarity between golf and tennis and baseball. There are common motions between tennis, other sports, and many everyday work and play motions. When teaching a student an athletic motion that the student is having trouble getting, it is important to show the student that the athletic motion is similar to a motion that the student can do in some other aspect of life. That is part of effective teaching of physical skills.

For the record, as a golfer hits the ball, the golfer should be rotating to face the target. Too many of today's pro tennis players stay too sideways as they hit forehands. Also, the great Hogan and all good golfers have kinda a collapse from the top of their swing that generates an even greater angle, more acute angle, between forearms and club.....as the club begins to move forward. Good tennis players do the same thing, but that is not related to the tip-up, gravity position of players like Federer and Berdych.

Think about baseball and golf. In those sports, at no time do good players sabotage the angle between forearm and hitting instrument (bat or club). But that is what Berdych and Federer do. Their unit turn, gravity motion preparation puts their hands & the angle between forearm and racket in a position that is awkward. Therefore, they must perform complicated adjustments during the stroke in order to hit the ball well. Usually, they somewhat succeed, but too often, they fail and hit bad shots.

Think of lifting a heavy box. Notice where your right elbow is, if you are right-handed. That is a special area for the elbow, not only for lifting, but also for contact point, impact point, in baseball, golf, and tennis. Unfortunately, the way Federer & Berdych prepare for topspin forehands, it is as though they purposely sabotage the connection between the elbow and that special contact area for the elbow. Again, those tennis players must make too many complicated adjustments to save their forehand swings.

As the baseball player practices his swing waiting for the pitcher, notice that there is a smooth flow from the position of the elbow at contact to the position of the elbow at the take back position of the baseball swing. Similarly, in golf, there is a smooth flow of the position of the elbow from set up position, to take back, to impact position. However, tennis players are taught to sabotage this elbow position, and to sabotage the smooth flow of the elbow throughout the tennis topspin forehand swing.

As I started learning tennis many decades ago, tennis was a poorly analyzed, poorly taught sport. Although details might have changed, it is still misanalyzed and mistaught. It is one of the most poorly taught sports, even by "certified" instructors. If people disagree with my insights, it just makes me happy that I have something to offer.

When John McEnroe started his tennis academy recently, he said something like "it's not as if the other academies are doing such great things." He is right about that, although I have no idea about the success of McEnroe's own academy. I watch some of the young players who have been trained by some of the alleged finest coaches, and I cringe.

[10splayer]

don budge: It is hard for me to think of a good topspin forehand on the pro circuit today. Dominika Cibulkova has a pretty good motion, but she needs to tighten up her backswing a lot. She needs to not get so sideways sometimes, in such an unnatural manner, so she does not have to fight against her body. She needs to learn to flow forward for short balls better. Even Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have noticeable flaws in their topspin forehands.

Players do not track (line up) the ball well. They do not use the free hand at the throat of the racket, so that their racket arm tightens up, and they do not have proper control of the racket. Their "unit turn" causes backswings that are too big, which prevent players from attacking the ball enough out in front of their bodies. Their unit turn causes the players to let the ball come to them, as opposed to hitting the ball at the peak of the bounce or on the rise. Their unit-turn, gravity-method, backwards-emphasis topspin forehands cause players to stand ridiculously far behind the baseline. Their technique causes them to have poor court coverage, poor court movement, poor anticipation.

On their follow throughs, they often do not roll the ball forwards enough.....do not hit through the ball with topspin enough. Instead, they have a wild finish that causes mishits and causes the ball to travel far from the intended target. It is like a golf swing that has a finish but not a follow through. Djokovic used to make many errors on his forehand because he would have a wild finish without meeting the ball out in front enough and without rolling the ball towards the target enough....before his wild finish. He seems to have improved that aspect of his game a little, although his forehand is still far from perfect. Isner also tends to make a lot of wild errors on his topspin forehand because Isner has a wild finish often before he follows through, before he rolls the ball forward towards the target.

Tennis Chiro, players who line up the ball with the free hand at the throat of the racket actually do much better moving for short balls, comparing to players who prepare as Berdych does. I see many many points in today's pro tennis in which it is embarassing how poorly today's pros move forward.

Your reference to left-brain and right-brain flies in the face of the most up-to-date information about the human brain.

Most pro players, especially male pros, today have topspin forehands similar to Berdych's.

That is why today's forehands are so bad. That is why there are so many unforced errors, such short rallies, so many mishits, so many embarssing shots, so many balls that land closer to the net than to the service line. But that is the technique coaches today espouse, unfortunately

.

Let's talk about Berdych. He does not track the ball well with his strings. Instead, he prepares with that unit turn sideways, with his racket back early and his tip up, with his free hand off the racket, sideways to the ball.

Berdych's style makes it difficult to get his racket started again. It is like a service motion in which the player scratches his or her back too early, so then the racket must stop before it starts up again to contact point.

Berdych's swing takes up more room towards the back fence than it does flowing forwards towards the target.

In baseball and golf, the bat or club are taken back smoothly from the intended point of contact, but the unit turn such as Berdych's is not a smooth, natural take-back. Berdych must make considerable adjustments during his swing so that he can hit the ball well. It is too complicated of a motion.

Berdych gets sideways so much, take his racket back so far and so early, that sometimes he embarassingly misses short balls because he fights against his body, or because he almost whiffs short balls that he should get to easily.

TO BE CONTINUED IN MY NEXT POST

Well, this is just silly. Don't know what you've been watching in the last 10 years, but the level of shotmaking is simply amazing, and getting better by the year. These guys simply swing as hard as they can and don't miss. It's fortunate for Fed, Nadal, or anyone else on the tour, that you were not their coach.

[gsheiner]

Thanks for asking.

The experiment was very successful on the forehand. I learned that my technique on the half volley is completely different from my forehand technique.

On the half volley, I essentially turn my core with my right arm hanging loosely. Then , when I have completed my turn and start to turn back, my right arm whips back and then forward creating a whipping action. I feel that I hold my hip action better and that I can continue to rotate my hip after contact.

The whole feel is that I can hit the ball in front without a huge backswing.If I were to think of a pro forehand , it seems like Agassi.

My regular forehand is much more of an arm swing. My preparation on my forehand is geared towards getting my right elbow back into the proper load position and is a much more mechanical type of shot.

Of course, one must see how these changes hold up in competition. On Saturday, I played a friend of mine who is nationally ranked in our age group and who usually beats me 6-3,6-4 ish. The first set I beat him 6-1 and was dominating him with the forehand. Plus, my forehand return was as good as it's ever been.

One of my thoughts is that this technique is essentially what we call a men's forehand technique, while my normal forehand with the early backswing is what we might call the women's technique.

So, for me there's something to this technique and I'm going to continue to explore it.

So, again I want to express my thanks to you and the rest of the gang ( including WBC for this technique) for including so much valuable info in your posts.

Cheers,

Glenn

[worldsbestcoach]

we disagree

10sPlayer -- I have watched pro tennis closely, a lot, in person and on tv, since 1968 when tennis went open. I have seen most aspect of pro tennis improve, but some aspects are slipping.

The best player in the women's game, Serena. is liable to go on streaks of mistakes because of the problems of her technique in topspin forehand (which I have described in above posts in this thread), and because of her backhand finish that sometimes does not follow through and roll forward enough through the ball (so the skimmed ball dribbles weakly into the bottom of the net).

And if you have not seen Federer go through stretches of embarassing forehands, you must not know what to look for. In most aspects, tennis is improving somewhat, but playing and coaching still have a long ways to go. The levels are not good. Tennis is just about the most poorly taught sport, even by the supposedly world class "experts." Right now, pro tennis is a boring game, replete with frequent mistakes, and much too frequent instances in which the shot does not go close to where the player was aiming.

Let's look at Coco Vandeweghe. I feel so sorry for her. She is receiving the best coaching that America has to offer, but she is a walking mistake factory. Are her coaches bad? Are her coaches afraid to teach her? I feel sorry for Coco and all the other pro players. Yes, I can even feel sorry for Fed, Novak, and Rafa, because they have never received some important instruction that would really help them.

[10splayer]

10sPlayer -- I have watched pro tennis closely, a lot, in person and on tv, since 1968 when tennis went open. I have seen most aspect of pro tennis improve, but some aspects are slipping.

The best player in the women's game, Serena. is liable to go on streaks of mistakes because of the problems of her technique in topspin forehand (which I have described in above posts in this thread), and because of her backhand finish that sometimes does not follow through and roll forward enough through the ball (so the skimmed ball dribbles weakly into the bottom of the net).

And if you have not seen Federer go through stretches of embarassing forehands, you must not know what to look for. In most aspects, tennis is improving somewhat, but playing and coaching still have a long ways to go. The levels are not good. Tennis is just about the most poorly taught sport, even by the supposedly world class "experts." Right now, pro tennis is a boring game, replete with frequent mistakes, and much too frequent instances in which the shot does not go close to where the player was aiming.

Let's look at Coco Vandeweghe. I feel so sorry for her. She is receiving the best coaching that America has to offer, but she is a walking mistake factory. Are her coaches bad? Are her coaches afraid to teach her? I feel sorry for Coco and all the other pro players. Yes, I can even feel sorry for Fed, Novak, and Rafa, because they have never received some important instruction that would really help them.

Lol, how are you going to "help" the above mentioned NUMBER ONE ranked players in the world? You're comments are silly, and yet quite illuminating as to your real on court experience.

[don_budge]

Attaboy Glen!

Glenn Sheiner...Great news! It was a tip WBC made that gave you something to think about...that's even better. What was your opponents ranking in which division and which section are you playing in? Just curious. I am really happy for you for your play this weekend. Playing tennis and feeling that you are improving is such a great feeling...especially if you can turn the tables on a guy who is usually the one smiling when you go to the net to shake hands!

[gsheiner]

Thanks for the comments DonBudge.(?Don)

This year was my first year in the 55's here in Ontario. I played doubles in the provincials and nationals. I didn't play singles for a couple of reasons ( work being the first, and being in good, but not elite condition, a second)

In the provincials, we lost 6-3 in the third in the semis to the eventual champions. In the nationals , we had an excellent straight set first round win, but suffered a disappointing loss in the second round.

Tennis Canada has been changing their ranking system this past year and has delayed official rankings, but my cohort group would be the guys ranked 5-15.
The top guys are a level above.

The friend I played this weekend lost in the third set to the first seed in the nationals this summer ( although the first seeding was based on the result of the previous year as he was probably the third best player this year)

My doubles partner finished seventh this year.

My main goal for this winter is to improve my baseline rally play as I don't do enough with many balls that are hit to my backhand. I leave too many balls too close to the center of the court. I know that a lot of the problem is footwork based, as I don' t think I quite get behind the ball enough when I'm on the run. Some of it is technique based for sure.

I'm one of those types that is always trying to improve, and I have a little bit of "bottle" in me as I'm known as the great experimenter when it comes to technique.

Thanks again for asking.

Glenn

[worldsbestcoach]

of course the very best players can still learn and get better

It is not silly to talk about strengths and weaknesses in even the very best players' tennis games. They say that they can still learn and get better. They want to get even better.

Look at Sampras. Near the end of his ATP career, Sampras had difficulty sometimes with his reverse court backhand volley. If the ball came to Sampras's backhand volley at net from the right-handed opponent's backhand corner, Sampras would unwisely prepare his racket too much to the side of his shoulder (instead of setting his racket out in front of his body). Therefore, Sampras had difficulty in pouncing forward with his volley enough, on the reverse court backhand volley. He would make mistakes, or not hit forcefully enough. Sometimes because he caught the ball late due to his excessively backwards preparation, Sampras would allow the ball to dip too much before he made contact. Thus, his volley attempt would find the net...or, because he would not hit his volley early enough, the opponent would run down the volley.

On the senior circuit, now, Sampras prepares his racket in a better position for this type of shot. Also, I have heard the "expert" commentators even say that Sampras's topspin groundstroke has improved since Sampras retired from the main ATP circuit.

Djokovic has improved his topspin forehand over the past year. He hits it flatter, more offensively, now. Also, I notice that he hits through the ball better. He used to be so quick to follow through over his shoulder or around his body that he would start his finish before he he would get the racket out in front of his body enough. Therefore, his forehand would sail a little bit wide right.

But now Novak does a better job making contact with the ball out front, even if it is only an inch or so further out in front compared to how he often hit it in the past. His racket tip now does not lag so frequently at contact point, compared to how he often hit his forehand in the past. He still sometimes makes that mistake, but not nearly as often.

I could go on and on about the top players improving their games over time. I could give many examples. I do not think that Pete or Novak or Roger would laugh at my comments in this thread. They are smart enough to know that they can still learn and improve, and might profit from fresh ideas, and even from a lesson.

You think what I say is silly. I disagree. It is ok. It is ok to disagree. Also, if most people disagree with me, then I am happy, because to me it means that perhaps my insights are rare and valuable. I stand by my view that the current state of tennis coaching is not at a high level.....even by the supposed most famous of experts .... not that the level of coaching was ever generally high in the sport of tennis.